A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Impacts on

Wildlife

Scott D. Jackson

And

Curtice R. Griffin

Department of Natural Resources Conservation

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Jackson, S.D. and C.R. Griffin. 2000. A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Impacts on Wildlife. Pp. 143159 In Messmer, T.A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and
Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society.

A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Impacts on Wildlife

Abstract
Animal passage systems can be designed to facilitate movement of certain wildlife species across
highways. Where the conservation of a particular species or group of species is concerned,
specifically designed mitigation has proven successful for a number of species. However, the
effectiveness of highway mitigation systems has not been evaluated with respect to the vast
majority of wildlife. It is probable that some species do not require specific design features while
others will require careful attention to factors such as placement, size, substrate, noise,
temperature, light and moisture. In areas where road and highway density is high, conservation of
particular species may be of lesser concern than the maintenance of overall habitat connectivity.
While it is impractical to design mitigation projects that account for the specific requirements of
all species affected by a highway, it may be possible to develop a generalized strategy for making
highways more permeable to wildlife passage for a larger number of species. This strategy will
require use of a variety of techniques given that the specific requirements for particular species
may be contradictory. Some of the most effective techniques for facilitating wildlife movement
(i.e. overpasses) are also quite expensive. A practical strategy for mitigating highway impacts on
wildlife movement may dictate that expensive elements be reserved for areas that are identified
as important travel corridors or connections between areas of significant habitat, while
inexpensive elements (amphibian and reptile tunnels) can be used at appropriate areas throughout
the highway alignment. In developed areas, corridors and habitat connections may be readily
apparent. For highway projects affecting a significant amount of undeveloped land it may be
necessary to conduct landscape analyses to identify connective zones for special mitigation
attention.

A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Impacts on Wildlife

Introduction
Road and highway construction affects wildlife through the direct loss and fragmentation of
habitat, by introducing a source of additive mortality for wildlife populations, and by disrupting
animal movement and dispersal (Andrews, 1990; Bennett, 1991; De Santo and Smith, 1993;
Jackson, 1999; Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). In the U.S., road and highway projects that fall
within the jurisdiction of federal and state wetlands protection laws are routinely evaluated for
wildlife impacts. A variety of habitat evaluation methods have been developed to help assess the
impact of projects on habitat for wetlands wildlife. However, road and highway impacts on
wildlife mortality, animal movement and dispersal generally receives little attention. EPAs
404(b)(1) guidelines emphasize impacts on travel corridors of aquatic species, yet, we currently
lack a practical strategy for mitigating the impacts of roads and highways on wildlife movements
that can easily be incorporated into highway design and permitting decisions.
Mitigating Impacts on Wildlife Movement
Tunnels have been used to help facilitate the movement of wildlife across roads and highways in
Europe, Australia, Canada and the U.S. Evaluations of the effectiveness of tunnels indicate the
need for careful design and placement, and that effectiveness is dependent on a variety of
variables, including: size, placement, noise levels, substrate, vegetative cover, moisture,
temperature, light, and human disturbance. More recently, overpass structures, also called
ecoducts or green bridges, have been used to facilitate passage for a wide range of species
(Berris, 1997; Keller and Pfister, 1997).
In order to design effective wildlife passage structures, attention needs to be paid to features that
affect their utilization.
Placement: Placement of passage structures can be very important for some species, even
relatively mobile species. Travel distance (to reach a passage way) may be especially important
for small animals. Mammals are generally capable of learning to use underpass or overpass
systems and may transfer that knowledge to succeeding generations (Ford, 1980; Ward, 1982;
Singer and Doherty, 1985; Land and Lotz, 1996; Paquet and Callaghan, 1996). This is unlikely
to be the case with reptiles and amphibians. This learning may result in improved mitigation
success over time for more mobile species, even for underpasses that are not placed at traditional
crossing points. Even so, many people consider placement to be the single, most important
factor affecting the success of passage structures (Podloucky, 1989; Foster and Humphrey, 1995;
Rodriguez, Crema, & Delibes, 1996; Rosell, Parpal, Campeny, Jove, Pasquina, & Velasco,
1997). One important challenge for placing wildlife mitigation structures is that wildlife
crossings on a community level may not be spatially clustered (Alexander and Waters, 1999).
Despite extensive efforts to facilitate wildlife passage in Banff National Park, the Trans-Canada
Highway is still a barrier to movement and dispersal for many species, and Alexander and Waters
(1999) suggest that it may be, in part, because crossing structures are too widely spaced.

4
Size: It is difficult to determine critical size thresholds for passage structures because these size
thresholds undoubtedly vary from species to species. For some species, openness - the size of
underpasses relative to the width of the roadway - may be more important that absolute size
(Reed, Woodard, & Beck, 1979; Foster and Humphrey, 1995). Tunnel layouts that allowed
animals to see the opposite end of a wildlife passage were positively correlated with utilization
for some species (Rosell et al., 1997). In general, bigger is better. However, some species, such
as Old World badgers (Pauline Schakenbos, pers comm.) and some small mammals (Hunt,
Dickens, & Whelan, 1987; Rodriguez et al., 1996; Clevenger and Waltho, 1999), may prefer
small underpasses. Based on studies of ecoducts in Europe, some have recommended that
wildlife overpasses be at least 50 m wide (Keller and Pfister, 1997).
Light: Some species are hesitant to enter underpasses that lack sufficient ambient light (Jackson
and Tyning, 1989; Krikowski, 1989; Jackson, 1996). Conversely, there is evidence that species
that are sensitive to human disturbance (e.g. mountain lions, Felis concolor) avoid areas that are
artificially lit (Beier, 1995). Maintenance of natural lighting through the use of overpasses, large
underpasses or open-top (grated) underpasses may help address these concerns.
Moisture: Maintenance of wet substrate is important for some amphibians species. Shrews are
often more active (or more mobile) on rainy nights and also may prefer wet substrates for
traveling. Underpasses at stream crossings will probably suffice for species that utilize riverine
or riparian habitat. However, many amphibian species do not use riparian or riverine areas for
migration and the presence of flowing water may deter usage by these species. Open-top (grated
or slotted) underpasses do provide sufficient moisture for crossings that lack flowing water.
Alternatively, innovative stormwater systems might be designed for closed-top systems that
would provide enough water to maintain moist travel conditions without creating flooded or
stream-like conditions. Proper drainage is important, because some wildlife species are less
likely to use structures when they contain standing water (Janssen, Lenders, & Leuven, 1997;
Rosell et al., 1997; Santolini, Sauli, Malcevschi, & Perco, 1997).
Temperature: Small underpasses may create temperature disparities (inside vs. outside) that
deter use by some amphibians (Langton, 1989a). Larger underpasses or open-top systems that
allow for more air flow may effectively address this concern.
Noise: Traffic noise can be a problem for some mammals, especially those sensitive to human
disturbance. Certain underpass designs (those with expansion joints and those with uncovered
medians) can be quite noisy (Foster and Humphrey, 1995; Santolini et al., 1997). Open-top
designs would be inappropriate for species that are sensitive to traffic noise. Overpass systems
that incorporate tree and shrub buffers along the edges, appear to be much quieter than underpass
systems.
Substrate: Some small animals feel more secure utilizing a crossing system if it provides
sufficient cover. For example, rows of stumps in an underpass appear to facilitate use by small
mammals (Linden, 1997). Maintaining or replicating stream bed conditions within over-sized
culverts may facilitate use by salamanders, frogs, small mammals and aquatic invertebrates,
thereby maintaining habitat continuity in the area of stream crossings. Certain species (e.g.

5
mountain pygmy possums, Burramys parvus) with very specific substrate requirements may
require special attention at wildlife crossings (Mansergh and Scotts, 1989).
Approaches: Characteristics of the approaches to underpasses or overpasses may affect their use
by some species. Forested species, such as black bears (Ursus americanus), prefer well
vegetated approaches. Other species, such as mountain goats, appear to prefer approaches that
provide good visibility. At Glacier National Park, mountain goats have apparently shifted
movement patterns away from a traditional crossing point rather than utilize an underpass that
offers poor visibility on the approaches (Pedevillano and Wright, 1987). The presence of cover
on the approaches, in the form of vegetation, rocks and logs, may enhance use by a variety of
small and mid-sized mammals (Hunt et al., 1987; Rodriguez et al., 1996; Rosell et al., 1997;
Santolini et al., 1997; Clevenger and Waltho, 1999). However, vegetation at the entrance of an
underpass may deter some mammals that are wary of conditions that provide ambush
opportunities for predators.
Fencing: Although some species may utilize underpass or overpass systems without fences,
some form of fencing does appear to be necessary for most species. Fences help guide animals to
passage systems and prevent wildlife from circumventing the system. Mountain lions moving
along stream corridors have been observed to leave stream valleys and cross over highways
rather than utilize large culverts (Beier, 1995). This has also been observed for two species of
turtles in Massachusetts (J. Milam, pers comm.). Ungulates commonly seek to avoid
underpasses and will generally use them only if other access across the highway is barred (Ward,
1982). In Banff National Park an elaborate system of multiple arched fences is used to deter
wildlife from walking around fences (B. Leeson, pers comm.). Some species are relatively good
at circumventing fences by climbing over (black bears) or digging under (coyotes, Canis latrans,
and European badgers, Meles meles,) standard fencing (Ford, 1980; Gibeau and Heuer, 1996).
Standard fencing is also ineffective for small animals.
Human Disturbance: In an evaluation of underpasses in Banff National Park, human influence
either as distance to townsite or human activity within an underpass was consistently ranked
high as a significant negative factor affecting passage use by ungulates and carnivores (Clevenger
and Waltho, 2000).
Interactions Among Species: Use of passage systems by predators may inhibit use by prey
species (Hunt et al., 1987; Clevenger and Waltho, 1999; Clevenger and Waltho, 2000; C.
Doncaster as cited in Clevenger and Waltho, 2000)
If mitigation objectives are defined too narrowly, mitigation projects can create as many
problems as they solve. An obvious example of this is the use of fencing along highways to
reduce wildlife road mortality, often for human safety reasons. When these fences are installed
without crossing structures, they can compound the fragmentation effects of highways on
populations, metapopulations and habitat. In designing wildlife passages, it is important to
remember that different species have different requirements. If fence and passage systems are
not designed for use by a broad range of wildlife, a project that facilitates passage for one species
might constitute an absolute barrier for another.

Toward a Practical Strategy

There is evidence that animal passage systems can be designed to facilitate movement of certain
wildlife species across highways. Where the conservation of a particular species or group of
species is concerned, specifically designed mitigation has proven successful for a number of
species. However, the effectiveness of highway mitigation systems have not been evaluated with
respect to the vast majority of wildlife species affected by highways. It is probable that some
species, such as raccoon (Procyon lotor) and skunks (Mephitis sp.), will not require specific
design features while others will require careful attention to factors such as placement, size,
substrate, noise, temperature, light and moisture. Some species, such as moles or terrestrial
turtles, may represent a substantial challenge even to a single-species approach to mitigation.
In areas where road and highway density is high, conservation of particular species may be of
lesser concern than the maintenance of overall habitat connectivity. There is evidence that roads
and highways represent substantial barriers to wildlife movement, especially for small species
with limited mobility. As blocks of habitat are carved up into smaller and more isolated pieces,
facilitating wildlife movement among these blocks will be critical to the maintenance of viable
wildlife communities in these areas.
While it may be impractical to design each passage structure to account for the specific
requirements of all species expected to use it, it may be possible to develop a generalized strategy
for making highways more permeable to wildlife passage for larger numbers of species. This
strategy may require a variety of techniques given that the specific requirements for particular
species may be contradictory. For example, open-top culverts may provide favorable lighting,
temperature and moisture conditions for amphibians but may be too noisy for some mammals.
Further, there is evidence that use of passage structures by predators may inhibit use of those
structures by prey species (Hunt et al., 1987; Clevenger and Waltho, 1999; Clevenger and
Waltho, 2000; C. Doncaster as cited in Clevenger and Waltho, 2000). A mix of different types of
crossing structures will likely provide the most effective and comprehensive approach for
facilitating animal movements across highways and railways.
Following are some elements and considerations for developing a generalize strategy for wildlife
passage mitigation.
Wildlife Overpasses: Wildlife overpasses have been constructed in Europe, the U.S., and
Canada. The most effective overpasses range in width from 50 m wide on each end narrowing to
8-35 m in the center, to structures up to 200 m wide. Soil on these overpasses, ranging in depth
from 0.5 to 2 m, allows for the growth of herbaceous vegetation, shrubs and small trees. Some
contain small ponds fed by rain water. Wildlife overpasses appear to accommodate more species
of wildlife that do underpasses. Primary advantages relative to underpasses are that they are less
confining, quieter, maintain ambient conditions of rainfall, temperature and light, and can serve
both as passage ways for wildlife and intermediate habitat for small animals such as reptiles,
amphibians and small mammals. They are probably less effective for semi-aquatic species, such
as muskrats (Ondatra zibethica), beavers (Caster canadensis) and alligators (Alligator

7
mississippiensis). By providing intermediate habitat, overpasses may provide the only feasible
means for allowing various species of moles to cross highways. The major drawback is that they
are expensive.
Wildlife Bridges: Wildlife bridges are large underpasses (up to 30 m wide, 4 m high) that
provide relatively unconfined passage for wildlife. These structures provide plenty of light and
air movement, but are may be too dry for some species of amphibians. Wildlife bridges with
open medians provide a certain amount of intermediate habitat for small mammals, reptiles and
amphibians. However, open median designs are much noisier than continuous bridges and may
be less suitable for species that are sensitive to human disturbance. Human activity within or
around underpasses may significantly reduce their effectiveness for wildlife (Clevenger and
Waltho, 2000). While less expensive than overpasses, wildlife bridges are also fairy costly.
Viaducts: Viaducts are areas of elevated roadway that span valleys and gorges. They differ from
bridges in that they are typically higher and cross streams and rivers as well as adjacent valley
habitats. Viaducts provide relatively unrestricted passage for riverine wildlife and species that
utilize riparian areas for movement. The height of viaducts allows for maintenance of vegetated
habitats beneath the structure and provides a sense of openness that is required for many species.
Expanded Bridges: Where roads and highways cross rivers and streams, expanded bridges that
provide upland travel corridors adjacent to the waterway can provide passage ways for many
species of riverine wildlife, as well as other species that may utilize stream corridors for travel.
Higher bridges with wider areas for passage underneath tend to be more successful than low
bridges and culverts (Veenbaas and Brandjes, 1999).
Oversize Stream Culverts: Where culverts are used to cross streams and small rivers, oversized
culverts, large enough to allow for wildlife passage, may be used. Box culverts generally provide
more room for travel than large pipes. Efforts to provide natural substrate, including large flat
rocks as cover for small animals, will enhance their use by some species. Construction of
benches on one or both sides of the stream to allow dry passage during normal high water periods
will also enhance these structures. The optimum size for these structures is not known but,
generally, the larger the better. Culverts are less expensive than expanded bridges, but are also
less effective (Beier, 1995).
Upland Culverts: Not all species of wildlife readily use stream or river corridors for travel
routes. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to the maintenance of habitat connectivity must
include structures allowing overland movement between wetlands and uplands, between uplands
and uplands, and from wetlands to wetlands. Badger pipes have been used effectively in Europe
to facilitate crossing by European badgers and these structures are use by a variety of small
animals (Bekker and Canters, 1997). Some mammals prefer larger culverts while others prefer
smaller ones (Clevenger and Waltho, 1999). Movements to and from wetlands are particularly
important for amphibians and turtles. Wildlife bridges (see above) may provide upland passage
for larger wildlife species but may be spaced too far apart to adequately serve small animals.
Relatively small amphibian and reptile tunnels may be a cost effective means of mitigating
highway impacts where roads and highways are located between wetlands and upland habitats.

8
Box culverts are generally preferable over pipes. For amphibians and reptiles, larger culverts
will probably accommodate more species than smaller ones. Open-top culverts can be expected
to provide more light and moisture, and will be more effective for facilitating amphibian
movements. Although there is evidence that amphibian and reptile tunnels are effective when
used with two-lane roads (Langton, 1989b; Boarman and Sazaki, 1996; Jackson, 1996; Jenkins,
1996), it is not known how effective they will be for facilitating passage beneath highways of
four or more lanes.
Dry Drainage Culverts: Culverts placed to conduct water during brief periods of runoff but
otherwise dry for much of the year are used by a variety of wildlife (Rodriguez et al., 1996;
Yanes, Velasco, & Suarez, 1995; Rosell et al., 1997; Clevenger and Waltho, 1999). With some
attention to design considerations, these structure might effectively serve a dual role in passing
both water and wildlife.
Fencing: Fencing for large and medium-sized mammals is required for underpass and overpass
systems to be effective. Standard fencing may not be effective for some species (black bears,
coyotes), but manipulations of wildlife trails and vegetation can also be used to guide animals to
passage ways (Roof and Wooding, 1996) and learning may enhance their effectiveness for these
species over time. Where fencing is used for large mammals, consideration should be given to
the use of one-way gates to prevent animals that get onto roadways from being trapped between
fences on both sides of the road. Fencing for small mammals, reptiles and amphibians must be
specifically designed to prevent animals climbing over and through, or tunneling under the
fencing. Short retaining walls can provide relatively maintenance-free barriers for reptiles,
amphibians and small mammals.
Travel Distances: Large passage structures suitable for more mobile species may not have to be
spaced as closely as passage ways designed for small mammals, amphibians and reptiles. A
mixture of widely spaced large structures and more frequent small structures positioned to
facilitate animal passage within designated connectivity zones would likely represent a more
cost effective strategy for mitigation than a series of large multi-species structures.
Some of the most effective techniques for facilitating wildlife movement (i.e. overpasses) are
also quite expensive. A practical strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife movement
may dictate that expensive elements be reserved for areas that are identified and designated as
important travel corridors or connections between areas of significant habitat, while inexpensive
elements (amphibian and reptile tunnels) can be used at appropriate areas throughout the
highway alignment. In developed areas, corridors and habitat connections may be readily
apparent (figure 1). For highway projects affecting a significant amount of undeveloped land it
may be necessary to conduct landscape analyses to identify "connectivity zones" for special
mitigation attention.
Landscape analyses for the purposes of identifying "connectivity zones" may vary. An idealized
approach would evaluate landscape features to determine the most valuable habitat for wildlife
and wildlife movement (figure 2 & 3). Designation of these areas as "connectivity zones" along
with a strategy for protecting significant habitat on both sides of the highway would provide the

9
most effective mitigation. Alternatively, build-out analyses could be used to determine what
connections would likely remain after an area is developed following highway construction
(figures 4 & 5). Treating these areas as "connectivity zones" with the selective use of
conservation easements and land acquisition to ensure proper connectivity, would be a less
expensive form of mitigation. Mitigation planning based on both types of analysis may provide a
practical and effective method for siting wildlife passage mitigation.
To mitigate highway impacts on wildlife we must focus both on reducing the impact of roadways
on local populations and preserving ecological processes related to landscape continuity and
metapopulation dynamics. Mitigation strategies that focus too much on preserving local
populations may be too expensive to be fully implemented, given the large numbers of species
involved. A practical strategy for mitigating highway impacts should first focus at the landscape
level, using the most effective techniques available to maintain landscape continuity and
metapopulation dynamics within designated connectivity zones. In addition to the
maintenance of some level of ecosystem function, cost effective techniques should be practically
employed throughout the highway alignment to maintain local wildlife populations.
In our opinion, a practical strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife should include:

Avoidance of highway fencing and Jersey barriers when not used in association with wildlife
passage structures,
Use of small (e.g. 2x 2) amphibian and reptile passages wherever roadways pass along the
boundary between wetlands and uplands,
Use of oversized culverts and expanded bridges at stream crossings,
Selective use of viaducts instead of bridges at important stream or river crossings,
Use of landscape-based analyses to identify connectivity zones where a variety of
mitigation efforts can be concentrated to maintain ecosystem processes,
Selective use of wildlife overpasses and large wildlife bridges within connectivity zones,
and
Monitoring and maintenance plans to ensure that mitigation systems continue to function
over time and that knowledge gained from these projects can be used to further refine our
mitigation techniques.

Conclusion
Traditionally, highway impacts on wildlife have been viewed in terms of road mortality and
threats to selected populations of animals. Viewing this issue from a landscape ecology
perspective, it is clear that highways have the potential to undermine ecological processes
through the fragmentation of wildlife populations, restriction of wildlife movements, and the
disruption of gene flow and metapopulation dynamics.
Many questions remain about how to design roads, highways, and wildlife passage structures that
will effectively mitigate the impact of roadways on animal movements and wildlife populations.
However, much has been learned from projects around the world that can guide current
approaches to mitigation. Through research, experimentation and the development of ecosystem-

10
based mitigation strategies, we should be able to identify practical and reasonable approaches for
mitigating road and highway impacts on wildlife communities and ecosystems.
We recommend the adoption of a concept in current use in the Netherlands, that of ecological
infrastructure (Friedman, 1997). Transportation planners know that highway and railway systems
must accommodate other elements of human infrastructure (water supply systems, sewer
systems, electric and gas utilities). By defining networks of core areas and connectivity zones,
biologists and natural resource planners can effectively define the ecological infrastructure for a
region and then work with transportation agencies to ensure that transportation systems are
designed to accommodate this ecological infrastructure.
Acknowledgments
Funding for much of the research used in this paper came from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Special thanks to Peter Oggier, Carme Rosell, and Carolyn Callahan, who
hosted visits abroad to learn from projects in their countries. Thanks also go to the many people
who took the time to meet with us and share their experiences with highway impacts and
mitigation projects: Bruce Leeson, Andrew Eller, Dale Becker, Mark Lotz, Annette Piepers,
Jeroen Brandjes, Pauline Schakenbos, Daniela Heynen, Stephen Gniadeck, and Mark Kern.
References Cited
Alexander, S.M. and N.M. Waters. 1999. Decision support applications for evaluating placement
requisites and effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures. Pp. 237-246 In G.L. Evink, P.
Garrett, and D. Zeigler (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife
Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Andrews, A. 1990. Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a review. Aust.
Zool. 26(3&4):130-141.
Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. J. Wildl. Manage.
59(2):228-237.
Bekker, H.G.J., and K.J. Canters. 1997. The continuing story of badgers and their tunnels. Pp.
344-353. In K. Canters (ed.) Habitat Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the
international conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological
engineering. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Bennett, A.F. 1991. Roads, roadsides, and wildlife conservation: a review. Pp. 99-118 In D.A.
Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (eds.) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey
Beatty & Sons, London.
Berris, L. 1997. The importance of the ecoduct at Terlet for migrating mammals. 1997. pp.
418-420 In K. Canters (ed.) Habitat Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the
international conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological
engineering. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The
Netherlands.

11
Boarman, W.I. and M. Sazaki. 1996. Highway mortality in desert tortoises and small vertebrates:
success of barrier fences and culverts. 5 pp. In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J.
Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of
the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.
Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 1999. Dry drainage culvert use and design considerations for
small- and medium-sized mammal movement across a major transportation corridor. Pp.
263-277 In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler (eds.) Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida
Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife
underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Cons. Biol. 14(1):47-56.
De Santo, R.S. and D.G. Smith. 1993. Environmental auditing: an introduction to issues of
habitat fragmentation relative to transportation corridors with special reference to high-speed
rail (HSR). Environmental Management 17:111-114.
Ford, S.G. 1980. Evaluation of highway deer kill mitigation on SIE/LAS-395. U.S. Department
of Transportation Report No. FHWA/CA/TP-80/01.
Foster, M.L. and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and
other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1):95-100.
Friedman, D.S. 1997. Nature as Infrastructure: the National Ecological Network and wildlifecrossing structures in the Netherlands. DLO Winand Staring Centre for Integrated Land, Soil
and Water Research, Report #138. Wageningen, The Netherlands. 49 pp.
Gibeau, M.L. and K. Heuer. 1996. Effects of transportation corridors on large carnivores in the
Bow River Valley, Alberta. 13 pp. In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.)
Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of the
transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.
Hunt, A., J. Dickens and R.J. Whelan. 1987. Movement of mammals through tunnels under
railway lines. Aust. Zool. 24(2):89-93.
Jackson, S.D. 1996. Underpass systems for amphibians. 4 pp. In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D.
Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality,
proceedings of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida
Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.
Jackson, S.D. 1999. Overview of transportation related wildlife problems. Pp. 1-4 In G.L. Evink,
P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Jackson, S.D. and T.F. Tyning. 1989. Effectiveness of drift fences and tunnels for moving
spotted salamanders Ambystoma maculatum under roads. pp. 93-99 In T.E.S. Langton (ed.)
Amphibians and Roads, proceedings of the toad tunnel conference. ACO Polymer Products,
Shefford, England.
Janssen, A.A.A.W., H.J.R. Lenders, and R.S.E.W. Leuven. 1997. Technical stat and maintenance
of underpasses for badgers in the Netherlands. Pp 362-366 In K. Canters (ed.) Habitat
Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the international conference on habitat

12
fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jenkins, K. 1996. Texas Department of Transportation wildlife activities. 31 pp. In G.L. Evink,
P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing Transportation Related
Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar.
State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.
Keller, V. and H.P. Pfister. 1997. Wildlife passages as a means of mitigating effects of habitat
fragmentation by roads and railway lines. pp. 70-80 In K. Canters (ed.) Habitat
Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the international conference on habitat
fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The Netherlands.
Krikowski, L. 1989. The 'light and dark zones': two examples of tunnel and fence systems. pp.
89-91 In T.E.S. Langton (ed.) Amphibians and Roads, proceedings of the toad tunnel
conference. ACO Polymer Products, Shefford, England.
Land, D. and M. Lotz. 1996. Wildlife crossing designs and use by Florida panthers and other
wildlife in Southwest Florida. 6 pp. In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.)
Trends in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of the
transportation related wildlife mortality seminar. State of Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.
Langton, T.E.S. 1989a. Tunnels and temperature: results from a study of a drift fence and tunnel
system at Henley-on-Thames, Buckinghamshire, England. pp. 145-152 In T.E.S. Langton
(ed.) Amphibians and Roads, proceedings of the toad tunnel conference. ACO Polymer
Products, Shefford, England.
Langton, T.E.S. 1989b. Amphibians and Roads, proceedings of the toad tunnel conference.
ACO Polymer Products, Shefford, England. 202 pp.
Linden, P.J.H. van der, 1997. A wall of tree-stumps as a fauna-corridor. pp. 409-417 In K.
Canters (ed.) Habitat Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the international
conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The Netherlands.
Mansergh, I.M. and D.J. Scotts. 1989. Habitat continuity and social organization of the
Mountain Pygmy-possum restored by tunnel. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):701-707.
Paquet, P.C. and C. Callaghan. 1996. Effects of linear developments on winter movements of
gray wolves in the Bow River Valley of Banff National Park, Alberta. 21 pp. In G.L. Evink,
P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing Transportation Related
Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of the transportation related wildlife mortality seminar.
State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER-58-96.
Pedevillano, C. and R.G. Wright. 1987. The influence of visitors on mountain goat activities in
Glacier National Park, Montana. Biol. Conserv. 39:1-11.
Podloucky, R. 1989. Protection of amphibians on roads: examples and experiences from Lower
Saxony. pp. 15-28 In T.E.S. Langton (ed.) Amphibians and Roads, proceedings of the toad
tunnel conference. ACO Polymer Products, Shefford, England.
Reed, D.F., T.N. Woodard and T.D.I. Beck. 1979. Regional deer-vehicle accident research. U.S.
Dep. Transp. Fed. Highway Adm. Rep. No FHWA-RD-79-11.
Rodriguez, A., G. Crema and M. Delibes. 1996. Use of non-wildlife passages across a high
speed railway by terrestrial vertebrates. J. Appl. Ecol. 33:1527-1540.

13
Roof, J. and J. Wooding. 1996. Evaluation of the S.R. 46 wildlife crossing in Lake County,
Florida. 7 pp. In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.) Trends in Addressing
Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality, proceedings of the transportation related wildlife
mortality seminar. State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. FL-ER58-96.
Rosell, C., J. Parpal, R. Campeny, S. Jove, A. Pasquina and J.M. Velasco. 1997. Mitigation of
barrier effect of linear infrastructures on wildlife. pp. 367-372 In K. Canters (ed.) Habitat
Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the international conference on habitat
fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The Netherlands.
Santolini, R., G. Sauli, S. Malcevschi, and F. Perco. 1997. The relationship between
infrastructure and wildlife: problems, possible solutions and finished works in Italy. pp.
202-212 In K. Canters (ed.) Habitat Fragmentation & Infrastructure, proceedings of the
international conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological
engineering. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Singer, F.J. and J.L. Doherty. 1985. Managing mountain goats at a highway crossing. Wild.
Soc. Bull. 13:469-477.
Trombulak S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Cons. Biol. 14(1):18-30.
Veenbaas, G. and J. Brandjes. 1999. Use of fauna passages along waterways under highways. Pp.
253-258 In G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler (eds.) Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-73-99. Florida
Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Ward, A.L. 1982. Mule deer behavior in relation to fencing and underpasses on Interstate 80 in
Wyoming. Transportation Research Record 859, pp. 8-13.
Yanes, M. J.M. Velasco and F. Suarez. 1995. Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates:
the importance of culverts. Biol. Cons. 71:217-222.

14
Figures

Figure 1. In developed landscapes connectivity zones may be readily recognized as remnant

patches of habitat.

Figure 2. In undeveloped areas, landscape-based analyses can be used to determine connectivity

zones and the placement of wildlife crossing structures.

15

Figure 3. Landscape analyses based on ecological criteria can be used to select connectivity
zones that reflect habitat preferences and movement patterns of target wildlife
species.

Figure 4. Wildlife crossing structures located solely on the basis of ecological criteria may
become ineffective over time due to changes in land use.

16

Figure 5. Use of ecologically based landscape analyses along with land use build-out scenarios
may provide the most practical approach for identifying connectivity zones and
determining the proper placement of wildlife crossing structures. Strategic use of
land acquisition and conservation easements can enhance or preserve these
connectivity zones.